Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Stewart's Second  (Read 8316 times)

Ian Wallis

  • Member
  • Posts: 3814
Stewart's Second
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2012, 01:22:37 AM »
I'd probably put Jackpot second, and Three on a Match third.

Chain Reaction was OK, but the Geoff Edwards version was kind of dry.  I did like Double Talk, but only saw two episodes of it (the debut and finale, both of which GSN ran).  I remember Shoot for the Stars quite well and would probably rank that just head of DT.

Not meaning to start any arguments or anything, but I must admit I'm surprised by the love for Go on this forum.  I never really cared for it and I'm not surprised it was cancelled so quickly.  I just can't see what's so appealing about that show.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 01:23:23 AM by Ian Wallis »
For more information about Game Shows and TV Guide Magazine, click here:
https://gamesandclassictv.neocities.org/
NEW LOCATION!!!

clemon79

  • Member
  • Posts: 27694
  • Director of Suck Consolidation
Stewart's Second
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2012, 01:40:45 AM »
Not meaning to start any arguments or anything, but I must admit I'm surprised by the love for Go on this forum.  I never really cared for it and I'm not surprised it was cancelled so quickly.  I just can't see what's so appealing about that show.
I would be interested to see a comparison of "likes communications games like Go" to "is good at communication games like Go." Not saying you are or aren't, but it would not surprise me to learn that the people who worship at the altar of Bob Stewart's Communication Games (so Password, Pyramid, Go, etc.) also happen to be some of the better players of them.
Chris Lemon, King Fool, Director of Suck Consolidation
http://fredsmythe.com
Email: clemon79@outlook.com  |  Skype: FredSmythe

snowpeck

  • Member
  • Posts: 2082
Stewart's Second
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2012, 01:55:20 AM »
I'd have to go with Three on a Match also, though Chain Reaction and Eye Guess are right up there.  And to whomever was talking about foreign versions, Reg Grundy did copy import Three on a Match to Australia in the early 70s.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 01:55:55 AM by snowpeck »
Co-owner, The Daytime TV Schedule Archive
My website: http://www.gregbrobeck.net
My board game collection: http://boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/snowpeck (recently passed the 100 mark!)

WarioBarker

  • Member
  • Posts: 1920
  • Mind Wanderer
Stewart's Second
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2012, 02:36:21 AM »
Three On A Match is certainly high on my list, as are Eye Guess and Go (which, for the record, was very fast-paced).

And to whomever was talking about foreign versions, Reg Grundy did copy import Three on a Match to Australia in the early 70s.
Yeah, the man imported a lot of classic games, which apparently included an Aussie Second Chance in 1977.

CR has also been popular in other countries, where I'm not aware of a UK Jackpot or Three On A Match.
Jacpot (different spelling) ran for about six years on S4C, slightly longer than Lucky Ladders. TOAM had an Australian version in at least 1973.
The Game Show Forum: beating the **** out of the competition since 2003.

I'm just a mind wanderer, walking in eternity...

geno57

  • Member
  • Posts: 978
Stewart's Second
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2012, 03:21:44 AM »
I liked Three On A Match very much ... but I absolutely loved Eye Guess.  Cullen was perfect for it, and the comedy aspect of it, makes it one that I'd love to see reborn.

mmb5

  • Member
  • Posts: 2181
Stewart's Second
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2012, 07:02:24 AM »
Not meaning to start any arguments or anything, but I must admit I'm surprised by the love for Go on this forum.  I never really cared for it and I'm not surprised it was cancelled so quickly.  I just can't see what's so appealing about that show.
Thank you!  There are times I wonder if I am the only one who did not like it.  Go was completely unwatchable for me.
Portions of this post not affecting the outcome have been edited or recreated.

Don Howard

  • Member
  • Posts: 5729
Stewart's Second
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2012, 08:10:14 AM »
For me, Stewart's Second is The $xx,000 Pyramid because I have Jackpot(!) at the top of mine.

The Ol' Guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 1410
Stewart's Second
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2012, 08:44:59 AM »
Thanks for the info on the imports. I'll agree the Edwards version was dry, but it didn't help that the show looked like it was so done on the cheap, along with the rule changes and the lack of a studio audience. The only attraction was the basic game...what is the next linking word? So if you like that kind of game in general, you tolerate it. With the absence of the original bonus game, it just kinda stayed flat. As to GO, since we're still tossing opinions , I think Bob's original 1980 CR bonus was one of tv's cleverest and most demanding. Add that you were playing for $10,000, and you have an exciting 90 seconds. Just like Pyramid - you start with a simple game, then move on to an exciting, pulse-pounding bonus. GO was just too much of a good game idea, awkwardly played. I also found it hard to watch. An entire half-hour game based on the Pyramid winner's circle might be a bit much, too. Kinda like eating only desserts. Both bonus games were something you looked forward to as special moments in the overall game. But that's me...

And ya know, I hope Bob's friends and family hear and appreciate the love we're pouring on him and his shows....
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: Just happened to remember that one of my favorite Stewart pilots, CAUGHT IN THE ACT with Jim Peck was pretty much an elongated variation of the Pyramid end game. However, it wasn't played under a high-pressure time limit. It was more laid back and played for laughs as well. It can be done.

Watched a GO on You Tube to refresh my memory on exact rules. Another thing that bugged me about this game was: A team plays a list of words and comes up with a time score. Another team plays a totally different set of words in an attempt to beat the first team's time. I know it's a tossup as to which is possibly worse...the chance that you might draw a list of words that could be harder to communicate than a previous one (the writers assuming all words are equally easy to develop clues for), or the potential boredom that some people might get from watching two teams play the same list of words. A personal preference would be having both teams play the same list of words - having, say, team B in some sort of simple soundproof isolation until it's their turn to play the same word list. Part of the fun could come from seeing how different minds attack the same words, and if they do it more skillfully than the other team. It's a nit-pick, I know, but in this type of game, it's a preference.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 02:31:54 PM by The Ol' Guy »

JasonA1

  • Executive Producer
  • Posts: 3157
Stewart's Second
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2012, 12:51:58 PM »
Agreed with the above, in that the Go/Instant Reaction/Get Rich Quick mechanic was wonderful, but I liked it more as a part of a whole, rather than the whole. And going back to an earlier point: as somebody who is very good at word games (and this one is terribly fun to play), watching "Go" was often a little frustrating. There's a difference between watching somebody forget the obvious "next word" to a question-to-be, versus the people who never seem to "get it," and can't handle a sudden shift in the question. It's fun to watch two people who are really good at it come from different directions and still pull out a win. But the idea wasn't around long enough for people to develop that talent. I think more celebrities than contestants work in that game, because at least they could be on often enough to develop the skill, and/or have a natural knack for improvising.  

-Jason
Game Show Forum Muckety-Muck

J.R.

  • Member
  • Posts: 3901
Stewart's Second
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2012, 05:03:35 PM »
What irks me about Go: After a while, seeing contestants "talk... like... uh um oh... that... kind... oh uh... way... um geez... is..." can seriously grate on me.

But, is it fun to play? Absolutely.
-Joe Raygor

davidhammett

  • Member
  • Posts: 360
Stewart's Second
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2012, 08:54:25 PM »
For me it's Jackpot (the 74-75 riddle version), then Eye Guess.  In fairness, there are others that could easily go ahead of EG, but for its time it was a simple, cute, and clever idea that, as Bob always liked to say, would have the home viewer calling out to the TV.  The closest runner-up would be ToaM.  And, like a few of you others, although I like *playing* Go, it was too much of the same thing for my viewing tastes.

By the way, when I interviewed Geoff about 15 years ago, the impression I got was that it wasn't Stewart's decision to go from riddles to trivia questions on Jackpot; it came from the network, who had let focus groups determine the direction of the show.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 08:55:50 PM by davidhammett »

WarioBarker

  • Member
  • Posts: 1920
  • Mind Wanderer
Stewart's Second
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2012, 09:59:56 PM »
By the way, when I interviewed Geoff about 15 years ago, the impression I got was that it wasn't Stewart's decision to go from riddles to trivia questions on Jackpot; it came from the network, who had let focus groups determine the direction of the show.
No, that was what happened: Lin Bolen listened to focus groups who didn't like riddles -- and perhaps as a side effect, the show got really cheap (the Super Jackpot maximum went from $50,000 to $10,000). Stewart didn't like the change, and neither did Geoff.

(Source: Game Show Utopia.)
The Game Show Forum: beating the **** out of the competition since 2003.

I'm just a mind wanderer, walking in eternity...

Jay Temple

  • Member
  • Posts: 2227
Stewart's Second
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2012, 10:32:32 AM »
Among shows where I've seen more than one episode, I'd go with the riddle version of Jackpot, but the one ep of Eye Guess makes it seem like a lot of fun.
Protecting idiots from themselves just leads to more idiots.

Jay Temple

  • Member
  • Posts: 2227
Stewart's Second
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2012, 10:45:00 AM »
Watched a GO on You Tube to refresh my memory on exact rules. (snip) A personal preference would be having both teams play the same list of words - having, say, team B in some sort of simple soundproof isolation until it's their turn to play the same word list. Part of the fun could come from seeing how different minds attack the same words, and if they do it more skillfully than the other team. It's a nit-pick, I know, but in this type of game, it's a preference.
I think it would have worked. It worked okay on Show-Offs.
Protecting idiots from themselves just leads to more idiots.

chad1m

  • Member
  • Posts: 2883
Stewart's Second
« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2012, 11:39:16 AM »
I just can't see what's so appealing about that show.
I find it interesting to see how long (or even if) people can stay on the same wavelength. A good player can take a botch and work it into something successful and seeing if that can be done - and quickly enough to keep a good enough score to win the round - is part of the fun for me.